Mediaboss Marketing

PortCityDaily.com is your source for free news and information in the Wilmington area.

WILMINGTON A second law enforcement official has issued a promise of enforcing the law when it comes to Sundays announced Revolutionary Black Panther march in Wilmington.

The Revolutionary Black Panther Party of Wilmington first advertised an armed march via its Facebook page on Jan. 22. Since the announcement,District Attorney Ben David on Thursday andWilmington Police Chief Ralph Evangelous on Friday, pledged to support First Amendment rights, but also to enforce state law disallowing the carrying of weapons during protests.

In a press conference on Friday, Evangelous said the department was notified about a planned march by the Revolutionary Black Panther Party several weeks ago. Evangelous said the department reached out several times to national and local leaders of the group to inform them about local code and state laws.

Evangelous specifically cited North Carolina State law (N.C. Gen. Stat. 14- 277.2), which prohibits the open carry of weapons during demonstrations, protests or marches that take place on public property.

The march is supposed to take place at 1:30 p.m. Sunday in the Creekwood Public Housing community of Wilmington, according to the Revolutionary Black Panther Partys Facebook page.

The page also advertises a human rights tribunal, to be held at 714 Emory St. at 1 p.m. on Saturday.

Though a permit is not required for a demonstration, Evangelous said the group was asked to fill out a notice of intent to picket form, so that the city would be placed on notice.

That particular form has not been received at this time, Evangelous said.

Evangelous said his departmentwas committed to protecting First Amendment rights, regardless of message.

With that in mind, we are also committed to making sure all citizens are safe and protected during this event, Evangelous said. Our officers, along with our law enforcement partners will provide security for this event and will ensure that all city and that all state laws are obeyed, and we will take appropriate enforcement action if necessary.

Evangelous statement echoed a similar statement issued in writing on Thursday by David. David also said his office supports First Amendment rights, but that state law will be enforced. The statement read, in part:

This statute will be enforced in this district without regard to the applicant who seeks to assemble or the viewpoints of that group. When the assembly is convened on public property, individuals are prohibited from possessing firearms while demonstrating or picketing without advanced permission. Anyone in violation of this statute will be prosecuted.

On Friday, Evangelous further went on to assure the residents of Creekwood that police would keep that community safe during the event.

There are some good people in this community and your well-being is important to us, he said. We will do everything in our power to keep your community safe and move forward from this event.

Evangelous declined to speak about specific plans for Sunday, but said it involved a command post and law enforcement partners.

I assure you, we will have this under control, he said.

Attempts to reach out to the Wilmington and national offices of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party were unsuccessful.

armed, Creekwood Public Housing Community, protest, Revolutionary Black Panther Party, Wilmington Police Department

See the article here:
Wilmington police chief says he's 'committed' to protecting First Amendment rights, as well as community, during ... - Port City Daily

It didnt take cynics long to trip on the First Amendment. More than 500,000 people, including busloads from Loudoun County, marched in Washington in an historic, peaceful expression of American freedoms. Then came criticism from those who seem to have an issue with The First.

We had rather hoped for something better for these 45 words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its an elegant sentence, clear in its intention. No alternative facts. No political cynicism. No contempt for the right of the people to express any of the five freedoms:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Muslims included.

Or abridging the freedom of speech, even when words may make some uncomfortable.

Or the press, especially when it practices accountability.

Or the right of the people to assemble, as 500,000 women did in Washington with a common mission of solidarity.

Or to petition the government for a redress of grievances, of which there many against the new administration.

We can still honor the 45 words. In the next 45 days, in the term of the 45th President of the United States, we can rededicate ourselves to the inalienable rights that our Founding Fathers held most sacred: the 45 words in the First Amendment.

***

Express your rights

Send us 45 words expressing a right you hold dear. This is our version of the 45 for 45 Project created by a citizen. Because the First Amendment protects free expression, you can interpret those 45 words however youd like. Participate solo, enlist your Facebook friends or make it a class project.

Email your expression to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with the number 45 in the subject line. Well feature some of our favorites on LoudounTimes.com and in the Times-Mirror.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

Read this article:
EDITORIAL: There's nothing cynical about the First Amendment ... - Loudoun Times-Mirror

The Trump administration has taken steps to curb federal agencies from disclosing information about science and environment issues, according to a Reuters report on Tuesday. Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services have been instructed to limit independent communications with the public, reinforcing concerns that Trump, a climate change doubter, could seek to sideline scientific research as well as the career staffers at the agencies that conduct much of this research, Reuters said.

To find out whether the muzzled agency employees have a constitutional right to defy the Trump directives, I asked Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in the intersection of the U.S. constitution and federal government secrecy whether the First Amendment allows the government to bar employees from speaking in their official capacity.

The answer, in a word, is yes, although there are some loopholes, Kitrosser said.

In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an anti-retaliation case brought by Richard Ceballos, a longtime assistant district attorney in Los Angeles who claimed the D.A.s office denied him a promotion after he wrote a memo, spoke out to supervisors and even testified as a defense witness about inaccuracies in an affidavit investigators submitted to obtain a search warrant. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Garcetti v. Ceballosthat public employees dont surrender all of their constitutional rights when they enter public service, but it agreed with the L.A. District Attorneys office that Ceballoss memo about the troublesome affidavit was not protected by the First Amendment because the assistant D.A.s speech arose from his job.

We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Garcetti opinion. Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employees professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.

The Garcetti case would make it very tough for EPA or other agency officials to defy a presidential instruction not to speak publicly about the agencys work without risking their jobs. The Supreme Court said that in most cases, government agencies can tell employees what they may and may not say, Kitrosser told me.

In a dissent from the Garcetti majority, Justice David Souter said he hoped the courts ruling did not imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities, pointing out that professors have an obligation to share the results of their research. Minnesota law prof Kitrosser said its possible that the Souter loophole for academics could apply as well to federal government researchers. That argument, she said, is supported by the Supreme Courts 2001 decision in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, in which Justice Kennedy said the federal government cannot restrict federally-funded lawyers for indigent civil clients from challenging welfare laws.

Just as such a restriction was held to compromise the essential duty of a lawyer, Kitrosser said, a restriction barring scientists from sharing the results of their research might be considered a violation of the scientists First Amendment rights.

But thats a long-shot legal theory -- not much help right now to supposedly muzzled government scientists. Kitrosser said history may provide a more immediate response. President George W. Bush, as she has frequently written, tried to centralize the flow of information and particularly information about climate change from executive branch agencies. In 2006, the New York Times reported that a 23-year-old political appointee at NASA was attempting to restrict senior scientists from disclosing their research. After a public outcry that included a Congressional investigation, the space agency changed its policy.

Bad press and public pressure help, said Kitrosser. The main thing right now is screaming.

Every day seems to bring new troubles for Qualcomm, the chip maker accused last week by Apple and the Federal Trade Commission of abusing its monopoly on a key broadband processor used in cellphones and tablets. Wednesdays headache: an antitrust class action by consumers who bought devices containing the Qualcomm processors.

In class action litigation after the U.S. Supreme Courts holding last year in Spokeo v. Robins, there seems to a big difference between cases based on the theft of personal data and those claiming defendants improperly held on to confidential customer information.

The public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued President Donald Trump Monday for allegedly violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, has dedicated more of its resources than it would like to investigating and explaining the new presidents extensive, far-flung business entanglements.

More:
Can the president control the speech of federal agencies? | Reuters - Reuters

As this Post article (Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis) notes,

Trump administration officials instructed employees at multiple agencies in recent days to cease communicating with the public through news releases, official social media accounts and correspondence, raising concerns that federal employees will be able to convey only information that supports the new presidents agenda.

A student asked me whether this violates the First Amendment, and the answer to that is no, for a simple reason: Official government publications arent a place where employees are entitled to speak the publications are the voice of the government, not of individual speakers, and the First Amendment doesnt stop higher-ups from dictating or restricting what viewpoints are expressed there. That clearly flows from the Supreme Courts decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006); and while some argue that the decision is too broad, in allowing punishments for certain kind of government employee whistle-blowing, that decision is very firmly rooted when it comes to control over official government speech.

Now there might be statutes constraining some such presidential action (I dont know about that). Such action might not be within the presidents power when it comes to independent agencies (again, I cant speak to that). Such action may often be unwise. There are certainly political constraints on such action. And the First Amendment does in some measure constrain the government from restricting employees own speech, including on their own Twitter feeds, in op-eds, in scholarly articles and the like. (The rules there are complicated; see this post of mine for more on that, and Ken White (Popehat) also has a good summary.)

But the First Amendment doesnt give subordinates the right to choose what official government speech contains, over the objections of their superiors.

See more here:
No First Amendment problem with the president restricting what ... - Washington Post

There is no such a thing as a First Amendment in France. One reason is that libert de lesprit (freedom of thought and expression, as well as irreverence toward the powers that be) has been part of the French psyche, culture, and custom for too long.

It actually predates the Revolution of 1789: the Old Regime was deemed to be "an absolute monarchy limited by satiric songs."Under the French modern regimes in the 19th and 20th centuries, public intellectuals -- from Franois-Ren de Chateaubriand to Victor Hugo to Emile Zola to Jean-Paul Sartre -- enjoyed extensive influence and extensive, if not complete, immunity.

In 1898, when Zola published Jaccuse (I Accuse), a devastating indictment of the handling of the Dreyfus case by a French military court, he was sued for "defaming"the military judges and sentenced to one year in jail and a 3000 francs fine. He was, however, pardoned two years later by the president of the Republic, Emile Loubet.

Seventy years later, in 1968, when Interior Minister Raymond Marcellin considered suing Sartre for supporting a subversive Maoist newspaper, another president -- Charles de Gaulle -- tersely reminded him: "Marcellin, one does not send philosophers to jail."

However, recent developments may point to a completely different situation, and may turn a French First Amendment into a necessity after all.

Consider the cases of Pascal Bruckner and Georges Bensoussan.

Pascal Bruckner, 68, is one of Frances finest public intellectuals, the author of no fewer than twenty-eight books. He served as assistant or associate professor at Sciences Po (the famed Institute for Political Science in Paris) and at several American universities. A Catholic and the son of a Protestant pro-Nazi engineer, he was a Marxist sympathizer in the late 1960s.

By the mid-1970s, he had rejected both right-wing and left-wing extremism, along with suchNouveaux Philosophes(new philosophers) as Alain Finkielkraut, Bernard-Henri Levy, Christian Jambet, and Jean-Marie Benoist. This has remained his stand ever since then.

It turned him into an admirer of American democracy, a loyal -- if moderate -- supporter of Israel, and a critic of radical Islam: three major crimes according to French political correctness.

In 2015, shortly after the Bataclan massacre, an Islamist terrorattack in Paris that killed 130 people and wounded or maimed about 368, Bruckner remarked on a radio program that such "anti-racist"militant groups as Les Indivisibles (The Indivisibles)and Les Indignes de la Rpublique (The Republics Natives), known to show systematic partiality for non-Caucasians and Muslims whatever the issue, provided "ideological justification"for jihadism.

He was subsequently sued for defamation by both groups.

Even if Bruckner was cleared on January 17 by a Paris court, one wonders whether the defamation charge should have been considered in the first place, and whether it was not part of a larger attempt to harass and silence him. One reason why Bruckner may have been targeted is that he frequently wrote about anti-Semitism, including in a 2014 personal memoir, Un Bon Fils (A Good Son), in which he described his own fathers pathological hatred for Jews.

See the original post here:
Prosecutions Show France Needs a First Amendment to Discuss Islam - PJ Media (blog)